By Princess Eugene Majuru, Princess of Harare
Harare Zimbabwe ( News of The South) The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Banjul Charter) stands as a unique human rights instrument, explicitly recognizing not just individual rights (like the ICCPR) but also Peoples’ Rights—collective rights designed to counteract the devastating impact of colonialism. The ongoing marginalization of the Mbari clan of Harare perfectly illustrates how the failure to actively reverse colonial injustices can constitute a continuous suppression of these Charter rights.
1. The Charters’ Mandate: Why They Were Written
The ICCPR and The Banjul Charter: A Unified Right
Both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Banjul Charter enshrine the fundamental collective right to Self-Determination (ICCPR, Article 1) and the Right to Development (Banjul Charter, Article 22).
ICCPR (1966): Born from the Cold War separation of rights, it legally binds states to protect First-Generation Rights (civil and political liberties).
Banjul Charter (1981): Adopted by the Organization of African Unity (OAU), it was a deliberate philosophical shift. It emphasizes the African concept of communalism, recognizing that post-colonial people were oppressed as a group. It uniquely includes:
Peoples’ Rights (Articles 19-24): The right to existence, self-determination, and the free disposal of natural wealth.
Duties (Articles 27-29): The duty to society and the State, including the duty to preserve and strengthen positive African cultural values.
The Charter’s primary objective was to eliminate all forms of colonialism, neo-colonialism, and discrimination, making it a tool to reclaim African sovereignty, dignity, and cultural identity.
2. The Mbari Clan of Harare: Suppression through Omission
The historical claims by the Mbari clan regarding jurisdiction over the area encompassing modern-day Harare, Zimbabwe, highlight a classic case of colonial displacement. The failure to officially resuscitate the Mbari chieftaincy after independence is not a benign administrative oversight; it is a profound violation of the Banjul Charter’s core tenets.
The Violation of the Right to Cultural and Economic Development (Article 22)
Article 22 of the Banjul Charter states:
“All peoples shall have the right to their economic, social and cultural development with due regard to their freedom and identity… States shall have the duty… to ensure the exercise of the right to development.”
The non-resuscitation of the Mbari chieftaincy translates directly into suppression:
Aspect of Suppression Charter Right Violated How the Clan is Affected
Cultural Dislocation Right to Cultural Identity (Art. 22) The clan, which claims spiritual guardianship over the land, is unable to perform essential traditional ceremonies on their ancestral territory, leading to the erosion of their collective identity and traditional governance structure.
Economic Disadvantage Right to Development (Art. 22) and Free Disposal of Wealth (Art. 21) Traditional chieftaincies are often custodians of communal land and natural resources. By being denied official recognition, the Mbari people are excluded from participating in decision-making processes regarding the development, revenue, and historical sites within the capital city. Their economic marginalization becomes a direct continuation of colonial-era land dispossession.
Lack of Redress Right to Equality and Dignity (Art. 3 & 5) The continued silence and inaction by state organs (like the Chiefs’ Council) in rectifying the historical wrong means the Mbari clan is treated as an irrelevant or non-existent entity, maintaining the indignity imposed by the colonial administration.
For the Mbari clan, the genocide of cultural and institutional erasure started under colonial rule and is sustained by the modern state’s failure to uphold its duty of restitution under the Charter.
3. The British Strategic Plan: Genocide of Institutional Erasure
Colonialism inflicted many ills, but the suppression of clans like Mbari was often the result of a calculated, multi-layered strategy designed to neutralize indigenous political and economic power.
The British colonial project, which established Salisbury (now Harare), required the complete removal of indigenous land claims and political authority to create a functional settler state. This was achieved not always through outright physical extermination, but through institutional genocide:
Land Dispossession: Indigenous leaders were either physically displaced, killed during the resistance wars (like the First Chimurenga), or had their authority legislatively stripped away. The prime land where Harare was built was declared Crown Land, nullifying any prior African claims, thereby severing the Mbari clan’s economic base and spiritual connection to the land.
Creation of New Authorities: The British often appointed or recognized rival/subservient chiefs who were willing to comply with the colonial power structure, strategically erasing the political visibility of clans like Mbari to ensure smooth administration and labor control.
Cultural Denigration: Colonial policy systematically denigrated and suppressed indigenous cultural systems, including traditional governance and spiritual practices, classifying them as “primitive.” This strategic cultural warfare provided the moral justification for the institutional erasure, ensuring that the new urban center was a European administrative and economic hub unburdened by African cultural claims.
Unlike other post-colonial groups who may have reclaimed their chieftaincies, the non-resuscitation of the Mbari clan in the nation’s capital—a place of immense symbolic, economic, and political value—demonstrates a persistent, systemic disadvantage that the state has a Charter-bound duty to correct. The contemporary struggle of the Mbari clan is a vivid, ongoing illustration of colonialism’s lingering injustice.
Comments
About Author
